Article

Precise correlation between MRI and histopathology - exploring treatment margins for MRI-guided localized breast cancer therapy.

Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Radiotherapy and Oncology (Impact Factor: 4.52). 11/2010; 97(2):225-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.07.025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more often considered to guide, evaluate or select patients for partial breast irradiation (PBI) or minimally invasive therapy. Safe treatment margins around the MRI-visible lesion (MRI-GTV) are needed to account for surrounding subclinical occult disease.
To precisely compare MRI findings with histopathology, and to obtain detailed knowledge about type, rate, quantity and distance of occult disease around the MRI-GTV.
Patients undergoing MRI and breast-conserving therapy were prospectively included. The wide local excision specimens were subjected to detailed microscopic examination. The size of the invasive (index) tumor was compared with the MRI-GTV. The gross tumor volume (GTV) was defined as the pre-treatment visible lesion. Subclinical tumor foci were reconstructed at various distances to the MRI-GTV.
Sixty-two patients (64 breasts) were included. The mean size difference between MRI-GTV and the index tumor was 1.3mm. Subclinical disease occurred in 52% and 25% of the specimens at distances ≥10mm and ≥20mm, respectively, from the MRI-GTV.
For MRI-guided minimally invasive therapy, typical treatment margins of 10mm around the MRI-GTV may include occult disease in 52% of patients. When surgery achieves a 10mm tumor-free margin around the MRI-GTV, radiotherapy to the tumor bed may require clinical target volume margins >10mm in up to one-fourth of the patients.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
109 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate tumor bed delineation after breast-conserving surgery is important. However, consistency among observers on standard postoperative radiotherapy planning CT is low and volumes can be large due to seroma formation. A preoperative delineation of the tumor might be more consistent. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of preoperative target volume delineation on CT and MRI for breast-conserving radiotherapy. Tumors were delineated on preoperative contrast-enhanced (CE) CT and newly developed 3D CE-MR images, by four breast radiation oncologists. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) were created by addition of a 1.5 cm margin around the tumor, excluding skin and chest wall. Consistency in target volume delineation was expressed by the interobserver variability. Therefore, the conformity index (CI), centre of mass distance (dCOM) and volumes were calculated. Tumor characteristics on CT and MRI were scored by an experienced breast radiologist. Preoperative tumor delineation resulted in a high interobserver agreement with a high median CI for the CTV, for both CT (0.80) and MRI (0.84). The tumor was missed on CT in 2/14 patients (14%). Leaving these 2 patients out of the analysis, CI was higher on MRI compared to CT for the GTV (p < 0.001) while not for the CTV (CT (0.82) versus MRI (0.84), p = 0.123). The dCOM did not differ between CT and MRI. The median CTV was 48 cm3 (range 28-137 cm3) on CT and 59 cm3 (range 30-153 cm3) on MRI (p < 0.001). Tumor shapes and margins were rated as more irregular and spiculated on CE-MRI. This study showed that preoperative target volume delineation resulted in small target volumes with a high consistency among observers. MRI appeared to be necessary for tumor detection and the visualization of irregularities and spiculations. Regarding the tumor delineation itself, no clinically relevant differences in interobserver variability were observed. These results will be used to study the potential for future MRI-guided and neoadjuvant radiotherapy.Trial registration: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform NTR3198.
    Radiation Oncology 02/2014; 9(1):63. · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MRI is increasingly used in breast cancer patients. MRI has a high sensitivity compared to mammography and ultrasound. The specificity is moderate leading to an increased risk of false positive findings. Currently, a beneficial effect of breast MRI has been established in some patient groups and is debated in the general breast cancer population. The diagnostic ability of MRI and its role in various groups of breast cancer patients are discussed in this review. J. Surg. Oncol. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Journal of Surgical Oncology 05/2014; · 2.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop a combined recipe for clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV) margins. A widely accepted PTV margin recipe is Mgeo = aΣgeo + bσgeo, with Σgeo and σgeo standard deviations (SDs) representing systematic and random geometric uncertainties, respectively. On the basis of histopathology data of breast and lung tumors, we suggest describing the distribution of microscopic islets around the gross tumor volume (GTV) by a half-Gaussian with SD Σmicro, yielding as possible CTV margin recipe: Mmicro = ƒ(Ni) × Σmicro, with Ni the average number of microscopic islets per patient. To determine ƒ(Ni), a computer model was developed that simulated radiation therapy of a spherical GTV with isotropic distribution of microscopic disease in a large group of virtual patients. The minimal margin that yielded Dmin <95% in maximally 10% of patients was calculated for various Σmicro and Ni. Because Σmicro is independent of Σgeo, we propose they should be added quadratically, yielding for a combined GTV-to-PTV margin recipe: MGTV-PTV = √{[aΣgeo](2) + [ƒ(Ni)Σmicro](2)} + bσgeo. This was validated by the computer model through numerous simultaneous simulations of microscopic and geometric uncertainties. The margin factor ƒ(Ni) in a relevant range of Σmicro and Ni can be given by: ƒ(Ni) = 1.4 + 0.8log(Ni). Filling in the other factors found in our simulations (a = 2.1 and b = 0.8) yields for the combined recipe: MGTV-PTV = √({2.1Σgeo}(2) + {[1.4 + 0.8log(Ni)] × Σmicro}(2)) + 0.8σgeo. The average margin difference between the simultaneous simulations and the above recipe was 0.2 ± 0.8 mm (1 SD). Calculating Mgeo and Mmicro separately and adding them linearly overestimated PTVs by on average 5 mm. Margin recipes based on tumor control probability (TCP) instead of Dmin criteria yielded similar results. A general recipe for GTV-to-PTV margins is proposed, which shows that CTV and PTV margins should be added in quadrature instead of linearly.
    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 10/2013; · 4.59 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
71 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014